I realize this probably fits the "Politics" forum more, but it would never be analysed in a scientific way there.

Do you think what has been stated in this article is correct from a purely scientific point of view? The sixth section in particular seems to be scientifically sound, so I would be curious what you all think.

The article looks to be political, not scientific. But, why not, a lot of garbage in SA is leftist politics posing as science. Racial demographics is a far better predictor of violence than gun laws.

Regarding #6, "Most US active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm." That strikes me as complete bullsht. The shooter at the homo club worked in security, and he was an employee of a security government that is a major contractor with the US government. The D.C. Sniper was ex-military. The guy who killed the kids at the Sandyhook elementary school had someone else buy his guns.

"Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any 'prohibited group'" Even if tighter gun laws worked, I'm not a Democrat maggot who thinks people should be treated according to a "group" they belong to. I'd prefer to take my chances in free society than live in a nanny state (with false promises of security).

At 6/14/2016 3:40:44 AM, Rukado wrote:The article looks to be political, not scientific. But, why not, a lot of garbage in SA is leftist politics posing as science. Racial demographics is a far better predictor of violence than gun laws.

Regarding #6, "Most US active shooters would have been denied the purchase of a firearm." That strikes me as complete bullsht. The shooter at the homo club worked in security, and he was an employee of a security government that is a major contractor with the US government. The D.C. Sniper was ex-military. The guy who killed the kids at the Sandyhook elementary school had someone else buy his guns.

"Individuals must prove that they do not belong to any 'prohibited group'" Even if tighter gun laws worked, I'm not a Democrat maggot who thinks people should be treated according to a "group" they belong to. I'd prefer to take my chances in free society than live in a nanny state (with false promises of security).

No analysis from a scientifc perspective, it would have been better off if you didn't post :/

At 6/14/2016 4:16:29 AM, Axonly wrote:No analysis from a scientifc perspective, it would have been better off if you didn't post :/

This is the very reason I posted it here.

Get a life. I gave a scientific analysis. I pointed out the violence better correlates with racial demographics than gun laws. I pointed out, contrary to the claims of the article, that a number of these shooters wouldn't have been stopped by background checks. This homo who just killed 49 of his peers worked in security company and had passed multiple background checks.

At 6/14/2016 4:16:29 AM, Axonly wrote:No analysis from a scientifc perspective, it would have been better off if you didn't post :/

This is the very reason I posted it here.

Get a life. I gave a scientific analysis. I pointed out the violence better correlates with racial demographics than gun laws. I pointed out, contrary to the claims of the article, that a number of these shooters wouldn't have been stopped by background checks. This homo who just killed 49 of his peers worked in security company and had passed multiple background checks.

All you did was-Complain about "leftist garbage" (Useless in all forums)-Talked about anecdotal evidence to dismiss scientific papers (Works in the politics forum though)-Ignored almost every point made in the article (Useless in all forums)-Ranted about democrats and "Nanny states" (Not even useful in the politics forums)

You did nothing to look at it from a scientific point of view, and for this purpose, it is useless. (Almost) everything you have said is just your opinion.

""Boohoo, guns kill people, people don't kill people!""

This just reflects what you are. You're an angry troll, and for this, you have lost all credibility. I don't believe you are capable of presenting logical, valid facts, let alone a justified argument.

All you did was-Complain about "leftist garbage" (Useless in all forums)-Talked about anecdotal evidence to dismiss scientific papers (Works in the politics forum though)-Ignored almost every point made in the article (Useless in all forums)-Ranted about democrats and "Nanny states" (Not even useful in the politics forums)

Look at you now, wallowing at the level you accuse me of being at. Okay, one paragraph in my post wasn't about science. If by ignoring almost every point made in the article you mean I focused on "The sixth section", which you said, "in particular seems to be scientifically sound." You're welcome, maggot. And, that anecdotal evidence is more evidence that the author in the sixth section gave (concerning background checks). You're welcome again, maggot.

Most importantly, I pointed to the elephant in the room, that violence correlates more with race than gun laws. If you don't know that to be true, educate yourself.

I realize this probably fits the "Politics" forum more, but it would never be analysed in a scientific way there.

Do you think what has been stated in this article is correct from a purely scientific point of view? The sixth section in particular seems to be scientifically sound, so I would be curious what you all think.

If there is one thing you Americans love , it's ya guns.So they should ban all masses , or hanging in groups above 4 should be illegal.

All you did was-Complain about "leftist garbage" (Useless in all forums)-Talked about anecdotal evidence to dismiss scientific papers (Works in the politics forum though)-Ignored almost every point made in the article (Useless in all forums)-Ranted about democrats and "Nanny states" (Not even useful in the politics forums)

Look at you now, wallowing at the level you accuse me of being at. Okay, one paragraph in my post wasn't about science. If by ignoring almost every point made in the article you mean I focused on "The sixth section", which you said, "in particular seems to be scientifically sound." You're welcome, maggot. And, that anecdotal evidence is more evidence that the author in the sixth section gave (concerning background checks). You're welcome again, maggot.

Most importantly, I pointed to the elephant in the room, that violence correlates more with race than gun laws. If you don't know that to be true, educate yourself.

You act like a petty, hateful child. Every time I have seen you in any discussion, you have just been resorting to insults and flaming. If you are capable of being more than this, I am yet to see it. You can be better than this, Rukado.